From YoungLG@corning.com Thu Dec 2 15:44:56 1999 Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) by gatekeeper.pdd.3com.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA05376; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:44:53 GMT Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19427; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:56:28 -0500 (EST) Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 09:55:29 -0500 From: "Young, Leonard G" Subject: RE: Hari as 10 Gig Fibre Channel To: stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org, "'Patrick Gilliland'" Message-id: <9C472CF03C5ED111BBF20000F84A170101471375@EAGLE.CORNING.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Sender: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org Precedence: bulk X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients X-Listname: stds-802-3-hssg X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: stds-802-3-hssg-approval@majordomo.ieee.org X-Lines: 141 Status: O Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 5259 All/Len I would vote for continuing the debate albeit with less accusatory rhetoric. I agree with Patrick. Roy has some good points. > ---------- > From: Patrick Gilliland[SMTP:pgilliland@methode.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 8:16 PM > To: stds-802-3-hssg@ieee.org > Subject: Re: Hari as 10 Gig Fibre Channel > > > Rich, > > I have to agree with Roy. There is no inherent > reason why the PMD interface should be a HARI. > The best PMD interface for a 10GbE optical transceiver > is a 10Gbit/s serial data stream. > > Only if one assumes there will be a multi-channel > or a single multi-level channel PMD is an interface > like this one necessary to discuss. > > Patrick Gilliland > patgil@methode.com > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > At 10:31 PM 11/28/99 -0600, you wrote: > > > >Rich, > > > >Perhaps the NCITS TC T11 is the correct forum to standardize on Hari. > Please remove it as a > >specific functional standard within P802.3ae. Please make it possible for > the people > >working on the PHYs to apply the functional implementations that are > needed for the specific > >PHYs. According to the 802.3 model the PHY specific coding occurs within > the PCS, not the > >PMD. Applying Hari between the PMA and PMD violates that model! > > > >Hari is only a requirement for those people that decided on the PHY of > choice before the > >HSSG got a chance to vote on it/them, and jumped the gun on their ASICs. > As far as I am > >concerned those people can implement anything they want, as long as they > do not make it part > >of the P802.3ae standard. > > > >Right now several people are upset because I have challenged their > perceived control of the > >development of 10GbE. I have brought disorder where they thought that > they had imposed > >order, their order. They are correct. I challenged their perceived view > of Ethernet as a > >confined protocol, when they did not understand how Data Link protocols > are used and what > >makes them functionally different. They did not understand that the > developers of GbE > >brought the disorder first by crossing the boundary between confined LAN > application and > >unconfined WAN application. > > > >The application of Fiber Channel technology and functionality helped cause > that disorder. > >Most FC applications have response timing limitations (100x ms) at the > application level, > >which makes most FC implementations Local. Putting Fiber Channel under > applications that do > >not have those same response timing limitations removes the Local only > limitation. FC is > >designed for campus facilities, using privately owned fiber. The GbE > people incorrectly > >thought that they too were making GbE into a Local only protocol. They > did not understand > >that the full duplex nature of the original Ethernet, applied through > 100mb 802.3 was what > >made it truly Local only. Even the electrical full duplex 100BT can be > used across a long > >haul fiber system by putting it into an optical transducer. Full duplex > 100FX has been used > >across long distances with wavelength/power transducers. GbE is taking > off as a leased > >fiber WAN protocol, without service operations support. > > > >I am not the cause of the disorder here. The people that did not fully > understand the > >implications and applications of what they were doing are the cause of the > disorder. Please > >do not codify that disorder within P802.3ae. > > > >Thank you, > >Roy Bynum > > > > > > > >Rich Taborek wrote: > > > >> Earlier this week, NCITS Technical Committee T11, chartered with > development of the > >> Fibre Channel suite of standards, approved a project proposal to extend > FC protocol to > >> an operating speed of approximately 10 Gbps, following the lead of the > IEEE 802.3 > >> committee. The project proposal, entitled FC-PI-2 to identify the > documentation effort > >> associated with the 10 Gig FC project, was approved by T11 Letter Ballot> > on Monday, > >> November 22, 1999 by a vote of Yes63-No02-NotVoting10 (4 yes ballots > included comments). > >> Further details and comments can be found via the T11 web site @ > http://www.t11.org/ by > >> clicking on "ballots", then "closed ballots", then "T11 Ballot - FC-PI-2 > PP approval". > >> The next step is to forward the project proposal to NCITS, T11's parent > body. The > >> FC-PI-2 project proposal can be found @ > >> ftp://ftp.t11.org/t11/admin/project_proposals/99-521v1.pdf. > >> > >> An introductory meeting to kick off the 10 Gig FC project will be held > during the next > >> T11 Plenary week on December 8, 1999 at the Peppermill Hotel in Reno, > NV, USA, during > >> the joint session of the T11.2 (FC Physical Layer) and T11.3 (FC > Interconnects) > >> committees. This meeting is scheduled for 1:00-2:00 PM. Further T11 > Plenary week details > >> can be found by clicking on "meetings" from the T11 home page. > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> Rich > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Richard Taborek Sr. 1441 Walnut Dr. Campbell, CA 95008 USA > >> Tel: 408-330-0488 or 408-370-9233 Cell: 408-832-3957 > >> Email: rtaborek@qedinc.com or rtaborek@earthlink.net > > >